"Under God": The wrong hill to die on.
Normally I would blog education-related items over on the OpenGATE blog, but this topic isn't exactly GATE related.
Just to make things clear, I am a staunch believer in the Separation of Church and State. I believe that history shows that every example of the mingling of the two has resulted oppression, religious persecution, and the loss of religious liberty. Regardless, I oppose the attempt by Michel Newdow to remove the phrase "under god" from the pledge of allegiance.
For 30 years, between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegience did not contain the troublesome phrase. In fact, the pledge has been revised numerous times since Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931) first wrote it in 1892. The phrase was added in 1954 at the height of the McCarthy communist witch-hunt era after President Eisenhower expressed public support for the idea. The phrase was added because the United States wanted to differentiate itself from those "Godless commies". If I had lived then, I would have opposed the inclusion of the phrase.
However, in the intervening years, the pledge has become ingrained in American culture, and the phrase "under God" has become an example of the 'civic religion' of the American government. Despite it's technical violation of the establishment clause, it is not (in my opinion) a serious transgression, and as the Supreme Court pointed out as recently as 1984, "[t]here is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 674 (1984).
I don't think that it is proper for teachers, or school districts to force children to participate in the pledge. During my school years, I witnessed many Jehovah's Witnesses abstaining from the pledge without ridicule, retaliation or coercion to participate. That is how it should be.
However, there are far more serious transgressions of the establisment clause taking place. This relates directly to the Christian takeover of the Republican party (which began under Eisenhower and Nixon but was firmly establised under Reagan, and has been extended under both Presidents Bush). George H.W. Bush, when he was Presidential Nominee for the Republican party said: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
At best, the "under God" phrase in the pledge is a borderline case, and it faces an uncertain future agains the Lemon Test. My fear is that this issue will come before a Roberts Supreme Court, and will be reversed. This in turn may cause a huge backlash and set back the cause of separation of Church and State.
Just to make things clear, I am a staunch believer in the Separation of Church and State. I believe that history shows that every example of the mingling of the two has resulted oppression, religious persecution, and the loss of religious liberty. Regardless, I oppose the attempt by Michel Newdow to remove the phrase "under god" from the pledge of allegiance.
For 30 years, between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegience did not contain the troublesome phrase. In fact, the pledge has been revised numerous times since Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931) first wrote it in 1892. The phrase was added in 1954 at the height of the McCarthy communist witch-hunt era after President Eisenhower expressed public support for the idea. The phrase was added because the United States wanted to differentiate itself from those "Godless commies". If I had lived then, I would have opposed the inclusion of the phrase.
However, in the intervening years, the pledge has become ingrained in American culture, and the phrase "under God" has become an example of the 'civic religion' of the American government. Despite it's technical violation of the establishment clause, it is not (in my opinion) a serious transgression, and as the Supreme Court pointed out as recently as 1984, "[t]here is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 674 (1984).
I don't think that it is proper for teachers, or school districts to force children to participate in the pledge. During my school years, I witnessed many Jehovah's Witnesses abstaining from the pledge without ridicule, retaliation or coercion to participate. That is how it should be.
However, there are far more serious transgressions of the establisment clause taking place. This relates directly to the Christian takeover of the Republican party (which began under Eisenhower and Nixon but was firmly establised under Reagan, and has been extended under both Presidents Bush). George H.W. Bush, when he was Presidential Nominee for the Republican party said: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
At best, the "under God" phrase in the pledge is a borderline case, and it faces an uncertain future agains the Lemon Test. My fear is that this issue will come before a Roberts Supreme Court, and will be reversed. This in turn may cause a huge backlash and set back the cause of separation of Church and State.
posted by William Hudson at 6:59 AM
1 Comments:
What are you, some kind of athiest?
Post a Comment
<< Home